| Just
Compensation as a Basic Constitutional Concept |
The
constitutions of the United States and the state of Oregon
guarantee that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. In this case the
[state/other public entity] is taking [a portion of] the
real property [together with rights of access, improvements,
and trade fixtures situated thereon] owned by the defendants.
You are charged with the duty of determining the fair
cash market value of the property being taken [and the
damage, if any, to the remaining property of the defendants].
Your verdict is the measure of just compensation to the
defendants.
___________________________
UCJI No. 60.04 |
|
| Plaintiff’s
Right to Possession |
The
plaintiff has the right to enter into possession of any
property it seeks for the [public use] at any time after
filing a complaint to acquire such property by condemnation
proceedings. In this case the plaintiff has exercised
that right by taking possession of the property not being
finally taken.
___________________________
UCJI No. 60.05 |
|
| Negotiations |
The
complaint alleges that before commencing this action the
plaintiff attempted to acquire the property described
in the complaint by negotiation, but the parties were
unable to reach an agreement with respect to the compensation
to be paid. There is no issue for this jury to decide
on the questions of negotiations.
___________________________
UCJI No. 60.06 |
|
| Compensation
for Partial Taking |
The
law declares that property owners must be justly compensated
when their property is appropriated for a public use.
The only issue in this case is the fair cash market value
of the property taken and the depreciation, if any, in
the value of the defendants’ remaining land caused
by this taking. Value must be determined as of [date],
which is the date the complaint was filed.
_________________________
UCJI No. 60.07 |
|
| Compensation
for Total Taking |
The
law declares that property owners must be justly compensated
when their property is taken for a public use. The only
issue is the fair cash market value of the property being
taken, which value must be determined as of [date], which
is the date the complaint was filed.
________________________
UCJI No. 60.08 |
|
| Fair
Cash Market Value |
Fair
cash market value is the amount of money in cash that
land would bring in the open market if it were offered
for sale by one who desired but was not obliged to sell
and was bought by one willing but not obliged to buy.
It is the actual value of the land on [date], with all
its adaptations to general and special uses, that is to
be considered. However, nothing shall be allowed for speculative
value, or possible value based on future expenditures
and improvements. The defendants are entitled to receive
the value of what they have been deprived, and no more.
To award less would be unjust to them; to award more to
them would be unjust to the state.
____________________
UCJI 60.09 |
|
| Partial
Taking — Before and After Rule |
Your
determination of just compensation in this case may be
made by using what is known as the "before and after"
method, which is as follows:
(1) Determine the fair cash market value of all the defendants’
property before this lawsuit was filed on [date].
(2) Determine the fair cash market value of all the defendants’
property that remains after the appropriation of the property
taken by this proceeding.
(3) Subtract the "after" value from the "before"
value.
The difference between the "before" and "after"
values will be just compensation to the defendants.
_____________________
UCJI No. 60.10 |
|
Partial
Taking — Market Value and
Depreciation of Remainder Rule |
Your
determination of the just compensation in this case may
be made by the following process:
(1) Determine the fair cash market value of the property
being taken, as of [date of filing of complaint].
(2) Add to that sum the depreciation, if any, to the defendants’
remaining property caused by the appropriation. The total
of the two sums will be just compensation to the defendants.
________________________
UCJI No. 60.11 |
|
| Measure
of Damage — Combination Rule |
Your
determination of just compensation in this case may be
made by using either of the two following methods:
The first is the "before and after" method.
To use it you should determine the fair cash market value
of all the defendants’ property before this lawsuit
was filed on [date]. Then determine the fair cash market
value of all the defendants’ property that remains
after the taking on that date. Subtract the "after"
value from the "before" value. The difference
between the two values will constitute just compensation.
The second method is to determine the fair cash market
value of the property taken on [the same date], and then
add to that the depreciation, if any, in the fair cash
market value of the defendants’ remaining property
caused by the taking. The total of those two amounts will
be just compensation to the defendants.
___________________________
UCJI No. 60.12 |
|
| Highest
and Best Use |
You
must base your verdict on the fair market value of the
property at its highest and best use. The highest and
best use of the property may be other than its current
use if it is reasonably probable that the property has
actual potential for higher and better use.
________________________
UCJI No. 60.13 |
|
| Items
of Damage |
During
the trial of this case, testimony has been admitted concerning
specific items of damage which the defendants claim depreciate
the fair cash market value of their remaining land. Testimony
has also been received as to the dollar amount of damage
attributable to those specific items.
In this regard, you are not allowed to assign separate
values to items or amounts of damage and add them up to
arrive at the depreciation to the remainder of the defendants’
land.
You may consider specific items or amounts of damage only
to the extent that they actually affect the fair cash
market value of the defendants’ remaining land and
only as a part of your overall deliberation to determine
the depreciation as a whole.
_________________________
UCJI No. 60.14 |
|
| Comparable
Sales — Weight Given To |
The
valuation witnesses have testified concerning the sales
of other properties in the area and the prices paid therefor.
Such testimony is not independent evidence of the fair
cash market value of the subject property. However, it
is admissible to explain the basis of the witnesses’
testimony and to support their reasoning. Therefore, you
may consider the sales testimony only for the purpose
of evaluating the witnesses and determining the weight,
if any, to be given to their testimony.
____________________
UCJI No. 60.16 |
|
| No
Potential Access |
A
right of access to a public highway cannot come into existence
until that highway is constructed and opened to public
travel. The defendants have never had a right of access
to the public highway being constructed on the property
being taken in this proceeding. In arriving at the just
compensation to be paid in this case, no damage should
be allowed simply because the defendants will not have
a future unrestricted right to go to and from their remaining
property and the new highway when that highway is constructed
and opened to public travel.
________________________
UCJI No. 60.18 |
|
| Special
Benefits Valuation Rule |
Your
determination of just compensation in this case may be
made by the following process:
(1) Determine the fair cash market value of the property
being acquired by the plaintiff. The taking shall be valued
as of [date].
(2) Consider the damages and the special benefits, if
any, to the defendants’ remaining property caused
by the taking and the construction of the project in the
manner proposed. The amount of special benefits, if any,
must then be subtracted from the amount of damages. If
you find that there are net damages to the remaining property
after having considered both damages and special benefits,
you must add that net damage figure to the value of the
property taken in order to arrive at your verdict. If,
however, you determine that there are special benefits
equal to or greater than the damages to the remaining
property, then you will allow by your verdict only the
fair cash market value of the property actually taken.
____________________
UCJI No. 60.22 |
|
| Trade
Fixtures |
When
[an owner/a lessee] of property installs on the property
fixtures or equipment that are essential to the operation
of the business conducted thereon for its highest and
best use, and such fixtures or equipment becomes an integrated
part of the building by being imbedded in concrete or
permanently fastened with the intention that they should
remain a permanent part of the building for the operation
of such a business, then such fixtures or equipment so
installed constitutes what is general termed trade fixtures.
If you find that the defendants have installed such trade
fixtures on their property for use in the operation of
their business, and installed them in the manner which
I have heretofore mentioned with the intention that the
trade fixtures should remain permanently a part of the
property, then in determining the value of the property
and its improvements, you should take into account and
give consideration to the value of such fixtures and equipment
as a part of the defendants’ property insofar as
they may enhance the cash market value of such property.
__________________
UCJI No. 60.24 |
|
